Dems enlist a new face in push for 9/11 bill: Bush

By
Greg Sargent

With even conservatives warning that the GOP is taking a big political risk by blocking the 9/11 health bill, Senate Dems clearly see the opportunity for political gain, and they're out with a new video featuring footage of Republicans themselves hailing the bravery of the 9/11 responders that would be helped by the bill they're opposing:

In an interesting touch, the video opens with footage of George W. Bush at Ground Zero with his arm around an exhausted and dazed firefighter, yelling into a bullhorn: "The nation sends its love and compassion to everybody who is here." This is, of course, supposed to be an iconic moment for many conservatives, and the video goes on to ask: "Whatever happened to supporting our nation's heroes?"

The video reflects the fact that Dems think the momentum in this particular fight -- and in the lame-duck session generally -- is swinging their way. Not only does New START appear on the verge of passage, but even Joe Scarborough and Fox News commentators are bludgeoning the GOP for their opposition.

It gets better. Rudy Giuliani, also an iconic 9/11 figure, has hopped back on his 9/11 magic carpet to denounce the GOP and demand Republicans let the bill pass. Giuliani even said Bush would want this to happen:

"In a way, I wish President Bush were around, because I think he could explain this to some of the Republicans who are being recalcitrant better than anyone else, because he lived through this."

I am confused about Guiliani's comment that "in a way, I wish President Bush were around." Did I miss something in the news? Is George W Bush dead? Is he now living someplace without access to a telephone or television? Is there something preventing George W. Bush from coming out and being able to "explain this to some of the Republicans who are being recalcitrant?"

I like Michael Steele, and I am mystified as to why Republicans are trying to get rid of him. Look at how well they have done in elections, since he took over. Compare the results under Michael Steele, to the results we have obtained under our DNC chairman.

I think we also ought to consider the possibility that these conservatives opposed to aiding the 9/11 responders comes not out of a cynical political strategy to make Obama look like a failure or even out of a soul-deadening corruption which leads them to support only those who give them the big political donations. To suppose either is perhaps unfair.

It could also be that these people are merely operating from the sincere assumption that if these firefighters, police and volunteers are now ill, God will heal them (if they deserve to be healed - and we'll know that when we see if them heal or continue suffering)...

"Gallup released a new national survey the other day, noting public attitudes on the origins of life. The results weren't exactly encouraging.

A 40% plurality of Americans seriously believe that humans were created by their God, in our present form, about 10,000 years ago. That's two-fifths of the U.S. population. Another 38% believe evolution occurred, but was guided by divine intervention. Just 16% believe in an entirely natural process, though that number has nearly doubled in recent decades.

...most Republicans (52%) in the United States embrace the notion of young-earth creationism, while Democrats and Independents accept this in much smaller numbers.

The incoming chair of a House subcommittee is evidence for your assertion:
http://tpmmuckraker.talkingpointsmemo.com/2010/12/climate_change_denier_shimkus_to_head_environment_subcommittee_video.php?ref=fpb

If they would only ammend the bill and put a few billion in it for all the Wall Streeters who lost their corner offices on 9/11 and may have had their wine at Windows on the World destroyed and their limos demolished, then the Reps would definately support the bill.

: bernielatham
That is better than I hoped, more than 1/2 believe in evolution. Since we can be nearly positive that either evolution occurred, or someone put out an amazing amount of effort making it look like it did, its a shame that so many doubt it occurred, because it means they believe in a lying God.

There is of course no way to tell if evolution was guided or not even if we could watch it all. You can get strong evidence that it could have been the decided non-random result of a partly random process, but its impossible to prove a negative. So you can prove that a man or women in the sky with unknown powers isn't guiding it.

The C-Span footage is good. But there also must be archived photos of many of these Republiclowns showing their patriotism and solidarity with 9/11 first responders by wearing assorted "NYPD" and "FDNY" hats, shirts and jackets. It is past time to shame them not only with their words, but also their cheap "patriotic" displays.

So, boiling it down, I understand the Dem position to be that everyone who was exposed at all to the vicinity of 911 WTC should be given free care for whatever health issues they have, without regard to their cause. And if you resist this you are unpatriotic and hate America.

@Liam-still "What exactly is the argument Republicans are making in voting against this bill?

Posted by: DDAWD | December 21, 2010 3:02 PM |

.....................

When they voted against cloture, they claimed that it was because the bill was raising taxes to pay for it.

The tax raise they were fighting against was the removal of the GOP created tax incentive for companies that outsourced jobs, to other countries."

I think the second part of the argument (which may or may not be accurate) was that this was letting the insurance companies and workman's compensations funds that should be paying these claims off the hook. I.e., it was a bailout for those who should have been liable for the claims.

Given that 9/11 has been treated as an act of war, not some sort of natural or man-made disaster, there's a pretty good case for nationalizing the costs of the response. They should probably tack this on to Ken Feinberg's mandate to keep out any scam artists, etc, since he's already very familiar with the facts at hand and wouldn't need to get up to speed due to his work as Special Master of the U.S. Government's September 11th Victim Compensation Fund.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kenneth_Feinberg

I'd rather see the ethanol subsidies wacked to pay for this, but as long as it's offset by other spending cuts or removals of tax expenditures, that's the main thing.

@muddy - You point to a valid positive in the findings. One of the traditional moves the creationists have made re evidences of evolution (the "lying god" as you have it) is that He put that stuff there merely to challenge peoples' faith. It's the epistemic closure thing in spades.

One other example of the sort involved the Shroud of Turin. Believers put in some effort to have the Shroud tested with dating techniques and when those tests brought back a date matching the crusades rather than 2000 years ago, they proclaimed that we can't ascertain what energies are involved in an Ascention and which thus might mess up the molecular structures of the Shroud.

Liam-stil, it's neither irony nor stupid. Have YOU read the proposed bill? Did you even know that free healthcare is proposed for civilians, including myself since I spent five days there, not just first responders?

To place these heroes at the mercy of worker's comp insurance companies is a disservice to those who literally risked everything for their fellow man. W/C insurance is NOT in place to assure the best care is provided for the injured. It is now set to protect corporations, minimize costs, and kick injured to the curb within two years. In many states such as FL, the injured has NO recourse as to the medical and compensation judgements of interested ($$$) parties. The docs work for the insurance companies and meet their quotas. A second, outside opinion is at the cost of the injured and there's no requirement that it be considered. Its a sham.

Reminding people of how Bush and The Republicans used 9/11 for their own cynical political advantage is not putting him in a positive light. It is just reminding people about how cynical and uncaring they really are. All Bullhorns And Flight Suits, but not a drop of real compassion for those who did the rescue work, and the fighting and dying.

Apparently Jim DeMinted does not give a rat's arse if the 9/11 first responder families have a good holiday season or not.

Why are civilians within 1.5 miles of WTC site -- not just "first responders" -- covered under this bill? Why not 1.6 miles? There are thousands of other Americans who are suffering because of 9/11, so why aren't they getting billions? Why should we cover healthcare costs that have been determined to be non-work related? To use the Democrat's class warfare argument, there's no means test for assistance, why should millionaires get this? Does the U.S. Constitution provide the authority to Feds for this?

Liam -- I'm about as cynical as you can be when it comes to politicians. And i'd agree that the flight suit photo-opt/stunt was at a minimum I'll advised. But I think the bullhorn speech was authentic.

And the GOP has been using 9/11 as a club for far too long. It's just a shame that the Dems have seen fit to do the same. Dems are exploiting this as a political opportunity -- nothing more, nothing less.

Democrats are merely trying to shame Republicans into doing the right thing.

As for Bush and his Bullhorn stunt. I would say that was the right thing to do, if he kept his word, and hunted down those who did it, instead of diverting most of our forces to launch his stupid invasion of Iraq.

He pulled Tommy Franks out of Afghanistan, just as soon as we had entered the damn place, and tasked him with preparing the Invasion of Iraq.

So what happened to all that megaphone guff about chasing down the bad guys who brought down the twin towers. It was all lies. He already knew that he was not going to devote much effort to doing that, because he was going to become the historic President who had transformed the middle east with his brilliant transformation of Iraq, and it's neighbors. Well, he sure did that. He made Iran much stronger, than they ever were before, and less afraid to stand up to us.

The media often talks about the War in Afghanistan lasting so long, but never bother to point out, that under Bush it was not actually being waged.

Why are civilians within 1.5 miles of WTC site -- not just "first responders" -- covered under this bill? Why not 1.6 miles? There are thousands of other Americans who are suffering because of 9/11, so why aren't they getting billions? Why should we cover healthcare costs that have been determined to be non-work related? To use the Democrat's class warfare argument, there's no means test for assistance, why should millionaires get this? Does the U.S. Constitution provide the authority to Feds for this?

Since September 2001 I have maintained the "9/11 list-serv" which distributes daily e-mails containing newspaper articles and other relevant information re: 9/11 issues of interest to 9/11 families, 9/11 organizations and interested individuals.

The 9/11 List-serv archives can be accessed at http://groups.google.com/group/911-list-serv

If you would like to 'subscribe' to this free news service - send an e-mail to amkorotkin@aol.com with the word "subscribe" in the subject box.

We encourage users to analyze, comment on and even challenge washingtonpost.com's articles, blogs, reviews and multimedia features.

User reviews and comments that include profanity or personal attacks or other inappropriate comments or material will be removed from the site. Additionally, entries that are unsigned or contain "signatures" by someone other than the actual author will be removed. Finally, we will take steps to block users who violate any of our posting standards, terms of use or privacy policies or any other policies governing this site. Please review the full rules governing commentaries and discussions.